Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Because that's how the story is used. There is nothing in the definition of "myth" which precludes the story being based on real people and events. the Genesis creation story is a myth whether it is literal history or not.Hello AA.
How do you know that the Genesis account is a creation myth?
Myth, a widely held but false belief or idea?Because that's how the story is used. There is nothing in the definition of "myth" which precludes the story being based on real people and events. the Genesis creation story is a myth whether it is literal history or not.
No,Myth, a widely held but false belief or idea?
Type myth and read the following.No,
"A traditional or legendary story, usually concerning some being or hero or event, with or without a determinable basis of fact or a natural explanation, especially one that is concerned with deities or demigods and explains some practice, rite, or phenomenon of nature." Dictionary.com (emphasis added) That was just my first hit but it is a pretty standard and widely known definition.
Neither my definition nor your definition number one require the story to be false. These are the literary definitions most appropriate to the Genesis story and do no violence to anyone's view of it.Type myth and read the following.
1.
a traditional story, especially one concerning the early history of a people or explaining a natural or social phenomenon, and typically involving supernatural beings or events.
"ancient Celtic myths" synonyms: folk tale, story, folk story, legend, tale, fable, saga, allegory, parable, tradition, lore, folklore; More
2.
a widely held but false belief or idea.
Well your prediction was not accurate.Neither my definition nor your definition number one require the story to be false. These are the literary definitions most appropriate to the Genesis story and do no violence to anyone's view of it.
Consequently, I predict that you will insist on using your definition number two as better suited to your rhetorical stance.
He's myth-ing the truth.How do you know that the Genesis account is a creation myth?
I beg your pardon. I am too used to creation insisting on the second definition so they can paint anyone using the term as attacking the Bible. I have, indeed, been called a liar for posting the first definition. But I assumed it to apply here, because the question was, which myth was more likely to be true, implying that it was a question independent of whether a story is a myth or not, invoking the first definition.Well your prediction was not accurate.
I was simply requesting clarification of the OP, because I was unsure of the intended meaning of the word, 'myth', in the OP.
Are there any reasons why the Christian creation myth should be preferred to (or is more likely to be true than) the creation myth of the the Bushongo people, which says that the lonely God Bumba had a terrible stomach ache one day and vomited up the sun, moon, stars, and the earth?
Not that science is a popularity contest...
The fact is, that actual scientists rejection evolution is so marginally small that it's kind of funny how AiG etc can publish such lists while thinking it means something....
And the evidence supports evolution. Also, why did you try to provide a list in the first place, then?you spot my main point. thanks. so we need to look at the evidence rather then a list of scientists.
51% of scientists believing in a designer from a survey done in the United States is kinda pushing the bar of saying "most". Given that the US is one of the most religious developed nations, I highly doubt that there is a strong majority of "designer believing" scientists in the world.as far as i aware about 3% of all scientists reject evolution. and most scientists believe in a designer too.
you spot my main point. thanks. so we need to look at the evidence rather then a list of scientists.
as far as i aware about 3% of all scientists reject evolution. and most scientists believe in a designer too.
about 5-10% of all scientists dont believe in evolution.
It's actually closer to 2%
You may not use the excuse of "english is not my first" to explain this level of dishonesty.as far as i aware about 3% of all scientists reject evolution.
Yes, on these forums it is courtesy to prefer Christian creation myth.
If lonely God Bumba has gotten his followers tech savvy enough they will have their own forums where his stomach ache is given preferred treatment.
you spot my main point. thanks. so we need to look at the evidence rather then a list of scientists.
as far as i aware about 3% of all scientists reject evolution. and most scientists believe in a designer too.
Aristotle stunted the growth of science for 2000 years.If anything, christianity slowed down or impeded technological progress instead of helping it.
I didn't know Pat Sajak smoked a cigar.As for "most scientists" believing in a "designer" of the human race...you're making that up.
Aristotle stunted the growth of science for 2000 years.
QV please:That's not the most ridiculous statement I've ever read, but it's close...but I'll bite anyway. How did he do that?
The idea that these four elements – earth, water, air, and fire – made up all matter was the cornerstone of philosophy, science, and medicine for two thousand years.
I didn't know Pat Sajak smoked a cigar.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?